Overview. Indexes are created to simplify. An index will simplify a large amount of data I to a single number or small group of numbers that have meaning all by themselves. The downside of "index watching" is the level of difficult required to develop meaning for the index. A simple example of a well-known index is the Dow-Jones Industrial Index. It originated when it’s author identified 100 key industrial stocks and divided their value by 100 to establish an average. This allowed an analysis of the market "movements" from day to day without having to calculate all the stock prices. It told whether or not the market was rising, stable, or falling. The cultural capacity indexes do mush the same to help understand whether or not the health of an organization is rising, stable, or falling.

The intention of offering all the potential index options is not to view all of them, but rather to select from among those available a few indexes that can be monitored throughout a change process as reasonable measures of cultural capacity development.

The Organization QWLI is the Adjusted Mean rounded to the nearest 1/10 of point. The "Ideal" range for the QWLI is between 6.5 and 7.5 on the 0 to 9 modified Likert scale. The QWLI offers a reliable methodology for the comparison of cultural capacity between individuals, teams, work groups, networks, and organizational units. It also allows the comparison of the same organizational elements over time to determine if improvements are achieved. In a dramatic way, the QWLI allows decision-makers to prioritize corrective actions so that limited resources can be applied to capacity improvement efforts. Finally, the QWLI provides some guidance to top decision-makers as to potential strategies that ought to be engaged to achieve accelerated results.

Some organizations encourage distinct departments, divisions, or separate operating elements to complete workforce surveys having two (or more) sections. The first section is comprised of survey items that pertain to all potential respondents. The second section pertains to a specific group (such as department, division, or separate operating element). Results from the CORE items can foster accurate comparisons between entities while the tailored items pertain only to the entity for which they were designed. Normally, the more specific tailored items will receive lower scores since the inquiries tend to be more directly linked with troublesome areas.

The Adjusted Mean is the arithmetic average adjusted for non-responses to survey items. The rationale for this adjust is to depict the organization cultural capacity at the lowest potential point by assuming that non-responses would have been the lowest possible response (or zero). From an organization development standpoint it is better to remediate issues based on this assumption rather than find out later that people didn’t respond because they might have been fearful of being "found out." In other cases, the non-response may emerge from people who do not know the appropriate response because they are unfamiliar with the subject mater or context used to frame the survey item. The Survey Development Team is always challenged by the facilitator to be sure the team has done it’s best by selecting and creating only items that can reasonably be answered by all members of the respondent pool – so non-responses may mean that people don’t know the answer to items that they ought to know. In any event, the potential for a non-response is assumed to be a "worst case scenario."

The True Mean is an arithmetic average attained by calculating NOT using the non-responses to all items. The result is a non-adjusted mean – the true mean. True Mean results are often used as an alternative to the Adjusted Mean when it can be determined that not all respondents knew the appropriate response for lack of subject mater knowledge.

The Return Rate is used to help determine the degree to which the collected data represents the entire organization accurately and reliable. The value of the return rate is highly subjective. The return rate for an entire organization may lead users to believe high reliability, yet a low response for a particular department within the organization may render the data collected useless for that department. The inverse may also be true. Overall organizational data may not be valid or reliable while the data for a specific group within the organization may be 100% valid and reliable.

An Inversion occurs when the Mode (most frequent response) is lower than the Mean (true or adjusted average). An ideal Inversion Index is "0." The higher the number of inversions the greater the level of remediation difficulty (assuming that inversions are deep rather than shallow). On any single "view" the maximum number of inversions will not exceed 10.

Any group of decision-makers or core decision-implementers use their authority in ways they believe consistent with the best interests of the organization (and sometimes in their own best interests). The relationship between their views of the organization and the consistency of their decisions and implementation of policy is remarkably high. If their view is fragmented, their decisions and the implementation of policy is also likely to be fragmented. The Cohesion Index is a critical measure of a group’s view of the organization and provides insight into how that group leads and manages the entire organization. It explains how one group can be in synch with policy and another group out of synch. If workforce survey results reflect confusion in decision-making or policy implementation the first index to view ought to be the Cohesion Index. An "Ideal" index is approximately "2.5." The greater the core leadership varies from this index the greater the likelihood that confusion will result close to the front line.

All demographics used on a survey are viewed to determine the number of actual versus expected respondents, the number of inversions, the adjusted mean and the true mean. It is relatively easy from this simple tabulation to determine which demographics (and combinations thereof) demand further attention. There should be "0" between 0.0 and 4.9.

The full zero to none (0 to 9) range of response is less desirable than, for example a range with a low of 5 and a high of 8. It is generally easier to change an organization’s capacity if the range is less than full. The "Ideal" aggregate range then, is "40.0" simplified because of the ten UHS categories to "4.0."

The lowest scoring UHS element(s) MAY need thematic attention. If the score of any single UHS element is more than 1.5 from the next closest element it may be a candidate for thematic attention – special general element strategy formulation.

The high scoring UHS elements MAY signal the need for thematic celebration or other potentially positive initiatives. If the score of any single UHS element is more than 1.5 from the next closest element it may be a candidate for thematic attention – special general element strategy formulation.

The Thematic Range is the difference between the lowest Thematic Mean and the highest Thematic Mean (either True or Adjusted). The fewer respondents used to calculate this index the greater the likelihood of a potentially erratic result and the less reliable the index. An "Ideal" Thematic Range will approximate 3.0. When the Thematic Range exceeds this index, the Low and High UHS Elements become an important consideration.

The Monthly Event Rate is the average number of events completed (event conducted AND results reported to the workforce) during the current Capacity Development Cycle. Normally the Capacity Development Cycle begins at the month during which Workforce Survey data collection efforts have been concluded and extends until the next data collection effort is concluded. The appropriate number of monthly events depends on the Quality of WorkLife Index) QWLI. One monthly event is appropriate for the Band A, B, and C population, while simultaneous multiple events are required for Bands D and E.

The Monthly Progress Rate is the average Quality of WorkLife (QWLI) Index progress (or regress) per month from either the original baseline, or from the last periodic or metric checkup. The expected progress is +0.1/Month.

The cost of progression is expressed in average monthly monetary value for the same period calculated for the Monthly Progress Rate. The cost of progression includes the cost of: average (or actual) compensation for participants, average (or actual) compensation for substitute workers (if appropriate), cost of external assistance (such as consulting fees), and ancillary costs associated with facilities, meals, lodging, travel, training, materials, etc.

Workforce survey results identify how many respondents self-score into one of the following five Smart Tailoring Bands:

A 7.6 to 9.0 Detached

B 6.5 to 7.5 Ideal

C 5.0 to 6.4 Hopeful

D 4.0 to 4.9 Fragmented

E 0.0 to 3.9 Disenfranchised

Several calculations can be made once the population of each Band is known. It is reasonable (although not necessarily desirable) for approximately 80% the entire population of any organization to be in Bands A, B, and C. One index, then, is the actual population of respondents in these three Bands expressed as a percentage.

Based on average payroll and Band populations, a calculation can be made that approximates the amount of potential financial loss and organization is likely to encounter in a fiscal year. Naturally the largest loss is calculated for the populations of Bands D, and E. The estimated loss is normally expressed in as a gross amount based on the respondent pool alone, an estimated gross based on the organization membership, or an estimated amount per employee. Specific information regarding identifiable Bands is also available.

An organization will improve toward "Ideal" and sustain an "Ideal" cultural capacity with a near 100% participation rate. That means that all employees MUST be in either of two categories: actively engaged in cultural capacity development initiatives OR engaged in activities that promote awareness of progress and thoughtful application or appreciation of advances made toward "Ideal" conditions. It is NOT enough for small groups to be working on initiatives to achieve advances unless those efforts are recognized and appreciated by the remainder of the workforce. It is also reasonable for all members of an organization to be actively involved in development efforts over the course of a three year period. A second Participation Rate would report the percentage of total workforce actively engaged in development activities over the three year period beginning at the Baseline data collection initiative.

Survey items with over 10% non-response rate cause the data to be of questionable value and require further special consideration.

The number of minimum number of months to an "Ideal" conditions is calculated by comparing the difference between the lower range of "Ideal" (or 6.5) and the current Quality of WorkLife Index (Adjusted).

When possible, the QWLI can be calculated using only items that have a personal inference, such as survey statements that include words like "me, my, or I." In such instances respondents are offering an opinion based on a personal rather than collective thinking. Although this is one accurate representation of employee opinion, it often falls short of data that represents an organization’s cultural capacity. Cultural capacity is embedded within relationships and is not necessarily exclusive to an individual’s opinion of personal experience.

When possible the QWLI can be calculated using only survey items that contain "we, our, us, people, employees, workers, language." By comparing the resulting QWLI’s with "ME, MY, I" calculations, users are able to correlate inference of culture based on the differences.

The Aggregate Mode is the accumulated Mode from each of the ten UHS Elements. The highest Aggregate Mode cannot exceed 90. An Ideal Aggregate Mode is "70."

Under "Ideal" conditions approximately 80% of the survey items will register with a Mode in the upper three scale selections (7, 8, or 9). This will leave 20% of the items needing attention.

The High/Low Aggregate Range of Modes is the accumulation of low and high Modes in each UHS Element.

Two potential word count numbers are available from processed survey results: in-line comments and end comments. Total number of words and numbers of words per respondent are QWLI-confirming indexes. Unless otherwise impacted by mandatory responses, for example, respondents will tend to express a higher narrative word count as QWLI scores decrease.

Word counts will tend to increase in association with negative UHS Element Themes and will thus be confirming of separate numeric scores.

When special interest is focused on a specific word or phrase, a "search word count" can demonstrate respondents level of interest in particular language.